Paul Erdoshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd% ... tical_workwhilst it is harder to pin this one down as a direct perp, he certainly contributed to driving the idea of the 'pure maths high priest' devising theorems that say nothing about anything whatsoever, whilst intimidating the layman.

George de Hevesy 'radiologist' and discover of the 'element' hafnium. The question of the 'actual existence' of some of the higher number atomic elements seems to me to be in doubt. Einsteinium, Californium? Another thread perhaps, perhaps we should ask primo levi.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Hevesy

Eugene Wigner, quantum physicist, another manhattan project employee and theoriser of the atomic nucleus and elementary particles. Wacked-out-Paedo also has him as contributing to theory of symmetry.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner

Super symmetry and quantum entanglement are the kind of theoretical ideas that often end up appearing as literary devices or tropes in lower middle-brow clash of cultures novels aimed at guilty white semi-educated guardian readers. On the other hand they would remind one of Robert Fludd and the weapon salve. Which was actually used, according to wackoP and, once more our friend Umberto Eco in his novel 'the island of the day before', to solve the problem of longitude.

Blumberg became a member of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia in 1964, and held the rank of University Professor of Medicine and Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania starting in 1977.

From 1999 to 2002, he was also director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute at the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.[

In November 2004, Blumberg was named Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of United Therapeutics Corporation,[17] a position he held until his death. As Chairman he convened three Conferences on Nanomedical and Telemedical Technology,[18] as well as guiding the biotechnology company into the development of a broad-spectrum anti-viral medicine.

virology, space biology, cancer treatment and nanotechnology. Must have been a busy man.

from wikipediaIn discussing the factors that influenced his life, Blumberg always gave credit to the mental discipline of the Jewish Talmud, and as often as possible he attended weekly Talmud discussion classes until his death.[22].

His classmate Arthur Kandel, neuropsychiatristhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_KandelKandel's initial interests lay in the area of history. History and Literature was his undergraduate major at Harvard University. He wrote an honors dissertation on "The Attitude Toward National Socialism of Three German Writers: Carl Zuckmayer, Hans Carossa, and Ernst Jünger."

Begins as a historian then dilettantishly switches to the human brain and psychoanalysis, but wait...becomes a professor of...biochemistry and biophysics! Would that we all were so multifaceted!

The wikipedia article details his discoveries about the brain, the discoveries of pyramidal neurons, various things about the removal of the hippocampus, god knows hippocratean oaths were violated and vivisectional horrors were commited...against sea slugs!?

The question of neurology and neurobiology has vexed me for some time. Are neurons real? do these experiments of electrically stimulating certain areas of the brain actually yield anything? There is a horrifying pandora's box of thoughts to be opened about transorbital lobotomies, electroconvulsive therapy, psychiatry, psychology, pavlov, mental institutions and the medicalisation of 'madness' and its associated drugs...'you fixate on your mother too much, therefore we will remove a part of your brain'.

I found a video with a simple proof of Einstein's relativity being wrong, from 11:00:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tig3NaTjI

In the image from the video, Run Ze Cao's uses the example of two lightnings striking a train car. There are three points A, B and O for the car. The distance between A and O is the same as the distance between O and B. The car is moving at a constant speed. A person on the ground observes two lightnings hitting A and B simultaneously when the car passes by.

According to Einstein's special relativity (SR) another person in the car observes that the flashes happen at different moments in time. There is a problem with that claim. The person in the car has a different frame of reference than the person standing on the ground and observes point A', B' and O'. So far so good. Ze Cao sets the midpoints for both persons to line up: O = O'. This is valid since it simply means a certain point on the railroad track.

For the person in the car it takes X seconds for the light to travel from A' to O' and it takes the same amount of time X for the light from the other lightning to travel from B' to O'. According to SR it takes Y seconds for the light to travel from A to O. But it also takes Y seconds for the light from the other lightning to travel from B to O. So in both frames of reference the light from both flashes reaches the midpoints simultaneously. Therefore Einstein's special relativity is false.

Notice how Einstein used two expressions he set to zero. Like setting a=0, b=0 and then making an equation a = bx. The flaw is that when both a and b are zero x can be anything! For example x=1: 0 = 0*1 -> true. Another example x=2 which gives the equation 0=0*2 which also is true. The value of x can be phi/sqrt(1 / theta^2) and the equation is still true. The equation is meaningless when both a and b are zero.

It does rather appear that when various 'big science' concepts are written about, it requires a leap of blind faith to get through. In reality, I think that if it feels like a rabbit hole, it is a rabbit hole. Einstein's 'amazing discoveries' are a good example, as are the various proclamations of Feynmann.

Once a theory is contextually irreproducible by the average layman, we are expected to accept its veracity 'because science'. And disagreement prompts the usual 'well what qualifications in <insert total bollocks academic discipline here> do YOU have?'.

On that basis, I don't waste my time trying to understand 'big science'. If I can try something out myself, in real life, then I'll take a look, but even then, nobody can agree unanimously on what they are seeing (see pi=4 clusterfuck), and discussions rapidly get confusing and circular.

I'd be dubious about Einstein purely on the basis of his theories, but as he looks likely to have been key to the nuclear hoax right from the 'Making Shit Up' phase, he looks even more dodgy.....

bongostaple » November 18th, 2016, 11:24 am wrote:Once a theory is contextually irreproducible by the average layman, we are expected to accept its veracity 'because science'. And disagreement prompts the usual 'well what qualifications in <insert total bollocks academic discipline here> do YOU have?'.

And also when a reference is used then there is often a claim like: "That's not a peer-reviewed source." There is a gatekeeper layer in academia that defends itself almost desperately. Public science has a big crisis. They have painted themselves into a false corner. One example is the superstring theories where they claim that the sum 1+2+3+4+5+... = -1/12. What kind of math is that? Most likely a fallacy of shifting arithmetic series and adding them in ways that can produce all kinds of nonsense results.

I have stopped pushing too hard against the academic community since the crisis in science needs to be resolved in a way that is constructive. If something like Einstein's relativity was publicly and officially declared to be a hoax, then the whole ivory tower of mainstream science would come crashing down. Not good.

bongostaple » November 18th, 2016, 2:24 am wrote:I'd be dubious about Einstein purely on the basis of his theories, but as he looks likely to have been key to the nuclear hoax right from the 'Making Shit Up' phase, he looks even more dodgy.....

The nuclear bomb/nuclear medicine double whammy is, without doubt, the greatest magic trick of our times (if not all-time). The majority of the world's population live in fear of nonexistent nuclear bombs (which obviously never killed a single soul) and believe in the efficacy of nuclear medicine (which has needlessly taken, and continues to take, the lives of millions of people)!

Anders » November 18th, 2016, 3:14 am wrote:If something like Einstein's relativity was publicly and officially declared to be a hoax, then the whole ivory tower of mainstream science would come crashing down.

Hopefully starting with Saint Albert's Temple of Doom.

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

The Albert Einstein College of Medicine ("Einstein"), a part of Montefiore Medical Center, is a not-for-profit, private, nonsectarian medical school located in the Morris Park neighborhood of the Bronx in New York City. In addition to M.D. degrees, Einstein offers graduate biomedical degrees through its Sue Golding Graduate Division. Allen M. Spiegel, M.D., has served as The Marilyn and Stanley M. Katz Dean since June 1, 2006.[1]

Einstein’s areas of focus are medical education, basic research, and clinical research. The school is well known for its humanistic approach to medicine and the diversity of its student body. The class of 2019 includes 183 students from 23 different states. In addition, 18% were born outside the U.S., and 12% identify themselves as belonging to groups considered underrepresented in medicine.[2]

Einstein is a major biomedical and clinical research facility. Faculty members received $157 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health in 2014, ranking 25th out of 138 medical schools in the U.S. The N.I.H. funding includes major amounts for research in aging, disorders of intellectual development, diabetes, cancer, liver disease, and AIDS.[3]

Dr. Samuel Belkin president of Yeshiva University, began planning a new medical school as early as 1945. Six years later, Dr. Belkin and New York City Mayor Vincent Impellitteri entered into an agreement to begin its construction. Around the same time, world-renowned physicist and humanitarian AlbertEinsteinsent a letter to Dr. Belkin. He remarked that such an endeavor would be "unique" in that the school would "welcome students of all creeds and races"[ ].[4] Two years later, on his 74th birthday, March 14, 1953, Albert Einstein agreed to have his name attached to the medical school.

The first classes began September 12, 1955, with 56 students. It was the first new medical school to open in New York City since 1897. The Sue Golding Graduate Division was established in 1957 to offer Ph.D. degrees in biomedical disciplines.[5] The Medical Scientist Training Program, a combined M.D.-Ph.D. program, was started 1964.[6] The Clinical Research Training Program, which confers M.S. degrees in clinical research methods, began in July 1998.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_College_of_Medicine#History

Notable research and achievements

Einstein has been the site of major medical achievements and accomplishments, including:[8]

In 1964, Einstein was the first medical school in the United States to establish a Department of Genetics.

In 1965, Einstein opened one of the first General Clinical Research Centers in the U.S., funded by the N.I.H.

The residency program in Social Medicine was established in 1970, in part to address the shortage of primary care clinicians in underserved communities.

In 1974, Einstein's Liver Research Center — now the Marion Bessin Liver Research Center — became the first institute in the United States for the study of liver disease and injury.

In 1976, researchers at Einstein identified the mechanism of action of Taxol [TAXALL], an important cancer drug. (Susan B. Horwitz, Ph.D.)

In 1978, Einstein was designated a Diabetes Research and Training Center, one of seven in the U.S. The Center has been home to prominent scientists involved in research on the insulin receptor, the mechanisms of diabetes complications, glucose toxicity, control of metabolism by the brain, and hypoglycemia.

In 1988, one of the first Centers for AIDS Research in the country funded by the N.I.H. was created at Einstein. Researchers at the center were among the first to identify pediatric AIDS as a distinct disease and established the first day-care center in the world for children with AIDS. (Arye Rubinstein, M.D.)

In 1994, Einstein became the only New York City medical school selected by the N.I.H. to participate in the Women's Health Initiative, the largest research study of women's health ever undertaken. (Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, Ph.D., principal investigator)

In 2006, Einstein became the only medical institution in the Northeast to serve as a research site for the Hispanic Community Health Study, the largest research study of Hispanic health ever conducted. (Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, Ph.D., principal investigator)

Scientists at Einstein pioneered research that has led to improved methods of avoiding organ transplant rejection. (Stanley G. Nathenson, M.D.)

Einstein researchers have conducted important epidemiologic research in migraines and other types of headaches. (Richard B. Lipton, M.D.)

The Division of Substance Abuse is the largest addiction treatment program in the Bronx, the second largest public treatment program in New York State, and the largest in the world operating under the auspices of a medical school. It serves more than 3,600 people, and provides comprehensive opioid addiction treatment at nine community-based outpatient facilities located throughout the borough, as well as ambulatory services for all substances of abuse at the Division’s Chemical Dependency Wellness Services program in facilities located in the North and South Bronx.

bongostaple » November 18th, 2016, 2:24 am wrote:It does rather appear that when various 'big science' concepts are written about, it requires a leap of blind faith to get through. In reality, I think that if it feels like a rabbit hole, it is a rabbit hole. Einstein's 'amazing discoveries' are a good example, as are the various proclamations of Feynmann.

Once a theory is contextually irreproducible by the average layman, we are expected to accept its veracity 'because science'. And disagreement prompts the usual 'well what qualifications in <insert total bollocks academic discipline here> do YOU have?'.

On that basis, I don't waste my time trying to understand 'big science'. If I can try something out myself, in real life, then I'll take a look, but even then, nobody can agree unanimously on what they are seeing (see pi=4 clusterfuck), and discussions rapidly get confusing and circular.

I'd be dubious about Einstein purely on the basis of his theories, but as he looks likely to have been key to the nuclear hoax right from the 'Making Shit Up' phase, he looks even more dodgy.....

(edit: typo)

I came to the same conclusion as you. Like with particle physics, maybe there are all these particles, and maybe not(I personally believe not). Since I have no way of verifying their theories, all I have to go on is their alleged results, presented by them. Since I can not be sure that they are not lying, or have not misinterpreted experimental results, etc. I cannot put any weight on their theories.

Where I do take notice is when applications are developed based on an understanding of how something works, eg.. Radio waves.

Anders » November 18th, 2016, 3:14 am wrote:[And also when a reference is used then there is often a claim like: "That's not a peer-reviewed source." There is a gatekeeper layer in academia that defends itself almost desperately. Public science has a big crisis. They have painted themselves into a false corner. One example is the superstring theories where they claim that the sum 1+2+3+4+5+... = -1/12. What kind of math is that? Most likely a fallacy of shifting arithmetic series and adding them in ways that can produce all kinds of nonsense results.

I have stopped pushing too hard against the academic community since the crisis in science needs to be resolved in a way that is constructive. If something like Einstein's relativity was publicly and officially declared to be a hoax, then the whole ivory tower of mainstream science would come crashing down. Not good.

Peer review is about the most anti-scientific idea I have ever heard. On the bright side, with the internet there is no reason others cannot make their own journals, and do things like have a bunch of people independently verifying experimental results.

Your second point is where I think 'official science' is not necessarily to blame. Lets say they found out the Sun actually does orbit the Earth(for the sake of argument). I don't think the populace could emotionally handle that, if presented by official science. It could break down our society. So in this hypothetical, official science might have to still go with the current Solar System model, even if they knew it was wrong.

aa5 » November 19th, 2016, 5:09 am wrote:Peer review is about the most anti-scientific idea I have ever heard. On the bright side, with the internet there is no reason others cannot make their own journals, and do things like have a bunch of people independently verifying experimental results.

Peer review may sound good in principle but yes, in practice check out what a mainstream scientist wrote to alternative researcher Miles Mathis:

"... publishers are not important for scientific truth—after I break free I will not publish my work in refereed journals because it means nothing—it is all fixed. I know how to get my papers published in refereed journals but it is a farce: I often end up having to teach the referee basic physics. As you know, the very idea of having your work judged by one person, who may be incompetent, less experienced, biased and ignorant, is a joke. And then you pay the journal thousands of dollars. A very inefficient, not to say stupid system. We need to publish our work in books like the old days and just say upfront, “C'mon, you reading this, you be the referee." -- http://milesmathis.com/main.pdf

Skeptics can say that the email in the quote could have come from anyone. It's probably true that official sources on average are more trustworthy so here is a description of mainstream science, officially, from the horse's mouth, namely the editor in chief of The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical peer-reviewed journals in the world:

"The case against science is straightforward: much of thescientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflictsof interest, together with an obsession for pursuingfashionable trends of dubious importance, science hastaken a turn towards darkness." -- http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/ ... 0696-1.pdf

We sure can. Some of us question whether the "artist" formally known as "Miles Mathis" even exists in the first place. We also suspect "Miles Mathis" is a team of paid DBA con-artists. What exactly is your point, (p)Anders?

We sure can. Some of us question whether the "artist" formally known as "Miles Mathis" even exists in the first place. We also suspect "Miles Mathis" is a team of paid DBA con-artists. What exactly is your point, (p)Anders?

My point is that the first quote showed that indeed, the peer review process is in practice less reliable than what has been claimed. And the second quote is from a mainstream source in case the first quote is unreliable.

I'm reading some of the text on Miles Mathis' website at the moment, but I haven't figured out yet if his claims are valid or not.

bongostaple » November 18th, 2016, 2:24 am wrote:It does rather appear that when various 'big science' concepts are written about, it requires a leap of blind faith to get through. In reality, I think that if it feels like a rabbit hole, it is a rabbit hole. Einstein's 'amazing discoveries' are a good example, as are the various proclamations of Feynmann.

Once a theory is contextually irreproducible by the average layman, we are expected to accept its veracity 'because science'. And disagreement prompts the usual 'well what qualifications in <insert total bollocks academic discipline here> do YOU have?'.

On that basis, I don't waste my time trying to understand 'big science'. If I can try something out myself, in real life, then I'll take a look, but even then, nobody can agree unanimously on what they are seeing (see pi=4 clusterfuck), and discussions rapidly get confusing and circular.

I'd be dubious about Einstein purely on the basis of his theories, but as he looks likely to have been key to the nuclear hoax right from the 'Making Shit Up' phase, he looks even more dodgy.....

(edit: typo)

I came to the same conclusion as you. Like with particle physics, maybe there are all these particles, and maybe not(I personally believe not). Since I have no way of verifying their theories, all I have to go on is their alleged results, presented by them. Since I can not be sure that they are not lying, or have not misinterpreted experimental results, etc. I cannot put any weight on their theories.

Where I do take notice is when applications are developed based on an understanding of how something works, eg.. Radio waves.

Now you're talking..... I've done a fair amount of electronics over the years, but only more recently started looking at radio waves. Since discovering CF about 2011, in fact. Work is incredibly slow (job, family etc), but I'm in the middle of a bunch of maths on decoding GPS signals, and when I've got my head around that I'm going to start working out how I could spoof the system with deliberately introduced delay in signals from stationary land transmitters. I've got a couple of ideas already as to how it's done, but despite the large amount of hits when you search on GPS, it's not all that easy to find proper detail on the decoding units.

But yes, this is an area where we can try things out, do experiments, even, and try to understand things better. When I can understand and replicate something, it isn't science for me anymore, it's engineering...

That is an interesting idea to set an overall goal for yourself, that will require you to learn much of how it works in order to accomplish the goal. I guess you will have to break that big goal down into small parts, then research each part.

So far I'm mainly reading on alternative science sites, and reading some of the studies in physics, I started several months back as a hobby. It still is like a very blurry picture for me, but I can now see a few small pieces of the picture with some clarity.

One thing I have found out, is someone telling you what a study says, is not reliable. Even if that person is really smart and honest, they could just be wrong in their interpretation or explain it poorly.